Zumax Nigeria Limited, a Nigerian oil and gas company, has filed a lawsuit against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) over alleged gross negligence in a long-standing receivership dispute.
The case, brought before Justice Akintoye Aluko of the Federal High Court in Lagos, accuses the CBN of failing in its statutory duty to protect customers’ interests and supervise banks effectively.
The dispute dates back to 1998 when Zumax Nigeria Limited secured an overdraft facility of ₦50 million, later increased to ₦200 million, from IMB International Bank PLC.
Following IMB’s merger into a commercial bank in Nigeria, Zumax alleged that the bank fraudulently inflated its debt, which had ballooned to ₦465.6 million by December 2002.
Zumax further accused the bank of misappropriating $4 million from its JP Morgan account after its former Managing Director, Edwin Chinye, took control of its foreign currency earnings.
Rather than resolving the dispute, the bank allegedly placed Zumax in receivership, leading to severe financial losses and the termination of key contracts with multinational oil companies. As a result, the company claims it was unable to operate for two decades.
Citing a 2007 CBN report, Zumax asserted that it had paid over ₦547 million to the bank and was no longer indebted.
However, despite repeated petitions, the CBN allegedly failed to investigate bank’s actions or intervene in the receivership.
In its lawsuit, Zumax seeks a declaration that the CBN was negligent in its supervisory duties. The company is also demanding:
- $41 million in special damages (including lost income and asset depreciation),
- ₦2 billion in general damages,
- ₦2 billion in exemplary damages, and
- ₦100 million in legal costs.
During the court proceedings, Adeleke Agboola (SAN), representing the CBN, argued that the court must first address the bank’s preliminary objection, which challenges the court’s jurisdiction.
In contrast, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), counsel for Zumax, maintained that there was no conflict regarding which matter should be heard first.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court adjourned the case to April 22, 2025, for a ruling on the procedural issue.
